Post navigation

Moderation Issues (6)

Please use this thread for (and only for) alerting admins to moderation issues and for raising complaints arising from particular decisions. We remind participants that TSZ is a benign dictatorship, the property of Dr. Elizabeth Liddle. All decisions regarding policy and implementation are hers alone.

2,546 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (6)”

Comment navigation

phoodoo: Of all the people I have heard say they quit here, I reckon 95% are because of you.

There used to be a bunch of bastards participating here who gave good reasons to quit. Now that they are gone, there is not much reason to quit, but there are not many participants or topics or discussions of interest to keep e.g. me here either.

Alan Fox is absolutely inconsequential. I suggest the numbers are low because UD’s numbers are low also. It is a miracle that this place has not gone completely down yet.

The post-Sept. 3 rise is likely explained by traffic coming from PS to the Swamidass vs. Nelson thread. Two out of three TSZ moderators, Alan Fox & Neil Rickert, posted in the thread it references. PS obviously has taken over from UD, which almost nobody pays attention to anymore. But serious discussion of what Swamidass is actually offering at PS hasn’t yet taken place at TSZ. Why not?

Wrong Jock, it was a comment about how you can just say anything, just lie your ass off, even when the evidence is staring you right in the face. Entropy can write “pull your head out of your ass ten times, and if I write the same to you, Alan will say, “Hey, you can’t do that, and guano it. And you will be right there backing him, making up some bullshit about how well, its different, when Entropy writes it, he has a reason to be frustrated, because your side, well, its not science”..blah blah fucking bullshit. And you will start guanoing Nonlin everytime he makes you look like a fool in an argument, with your schoolmarm warnings, ignoring everything else everyone says to him as if you are some deaf, dumb blind mute (Ok, perhaps you actually are,sorry. You still are an ass).

But go ahead, you and Alan can continue your nonsense. Its pretty obvious the site is going down in flames. Alan the destroyer will raze it to the ground, with help from his wet nurse Jock, you wanker.

Pull your head out of your ass Jock. That’s not breaking the rules right?

Wrong Jock, it was a comment about how you can just say anything, just lie your ass off, even when the evidence is staring you right in the face.Entropy can write “pull your head out of your ass ten times, and if I write the same to you, Alan will say, “Hey, you can’t do that, and guano it. And you will be right there backing him, making up some bullshit about how well, its different, when Entropy writes it, he has a reason to be frustrated, because your side, well, its not science”..blah blah fucking bullshit.And you will start guanoing Nonlin everytime he makes you look like a fool in an argument, with your schoolmarm warnings, ignoring everything else everyone says to him as if you are some deaf, dumb blind mute (Ok, perhaps you actually are,sorry.You still are an ass).

But go ahead, you and Alan can continue your nonsense.Its pretty obvious the site is going down in flames.Alan the destroyer will raze it to the ground, with help from his wet nurse Jock, you wanker.

Pull your head out of your ass Jock. That’s not breaking the rules right?

I see posts sent to guano when threads descend into empty name-calling and insults, the actual topic to be discussed long forgotten. And I see just about everyone doing this sort of thing from time to time, apparently out of sheer frustration that their view is not getting the attention and respect they think it deserves.

I’ve wondered whether a guano category is really helpful. On the one hand, it’s a good place for sticking preschool insults. On the other hand, it’s unavoidably an obvious indicator that “they” can get away with what “we” are prohibited. I sincerely do not know how to keep hyper-partisanship out of these threads, when all of us have a list of contributors for whom we have nothing but contempt.

It’s exasperatingly difficult to grab a post that’s mostly invective and insult, and try to extract some substance worth addressing, rather than flinging back the same feces.

The whole concept of moderation requires that the moderator actually be an impartial judge of the rules. But that’s a farce here and even you know that. The exact same comments from an atheist are then called against the rules when it is someone the moderators don’t like . I have shown how blatant this is over and over. The exact same posts are judged totally differently.

Furthermore, the atheist moderators here, besides ganging up to oust the only moderator here who didn’t play that game, use their moderating to try to win arguments. Look what the fuckwad Alan just did, to show clearly that posters like Paul Nelson here are not welcome, because they don’t support Alan’s views. It’s the only way these pathetic skeptics can control the narrative. If Jock starts losing an argument (always) , he jumps right to his warnings and censorship. What a dibk. They don’t don’t even pretend to be impartial anyone.

The irony of it all is that Lizzie says she started this site to counter her being banned at UD. So fuckwad Alan does exactly what they complained about, by making it impossible for non atheists to post here with any kind of fair treatment.

So should important people give valuable content to this website and contribute here? Hell no. Alan wants this site to be just as unsuccessful as his own failed attempts at starting a blog. What a moron. I think Alan secretly wants the site to close. The little baby shaking his baby rattle, and saying, I don’t want to play, give me that baby bottle, it’s mine, you can’t have it!

Entropy can write “pull your head out of your ass ten times, and if I write the same to you, Alan will say, “Hey, you can’t do that, and guano it. And you will be right there backing him, making up some bullshit about how well, its different, when Entropy writes it, he has a reason to be frustrated, because your side, well, its not science”..blah blah fucking bullshit.

See below.

And you will start guanoing Nonlin everytime he makes you look like a fool in an argument, with your schoolmarm warnings, ignoring everything else everyone says to him as if you are some deaf, dumb blind mute (Ok, perhaps you actually are,sorry. You still are an ass).

The first time nonlin accused another poster of lying, I warned him. The second time, I let it slide. It was only when he chose to repeat the allegation a third time that I guano’ed it. It is a black-and-white rule violation, and there is a limit. Thank you, though, for the idea that I am guanoing nonlin because he is making me look like a fool. I enjoyed that.

But go ahead, you and Alan can continue your nonsense. Its pretty obvious the site is going down in flames. Alan the destroyer will raze it to the ground, with help from his wet nurse Jock, you wanker.

I think that this site represents an experiment that has more or less run its course. Given that, I think there may be ways that this site could now be re-purposed.

Pull your head out of your ass Jock. That’s not breaking the rules right?

In my opinion, that is not breaking the rules. Neither is “Shove your foot in you mouth even deeper, please Entropy.“, which preceded Entropy’s comment.
Whereas these exhortations do breach the ‘address the post’ guideline, it is only a guideline.
On the other hand, your performance art, trying to make a point about moderation by posting :

Get your head out of your ass Jock.
Pull your head out of your ASS Neils!
Fuck off Jock.
Pull your head out of your ass.
Screw you Neils.
Blow Jock Alan.

constitutes ‘discussing’ moderation on the wrong thread.
I am a strong believer in very light moderation for posts that contain substantive content. I realize that you, phoodoo, will consequently remain forever convinced that I am a deeply biased wanker. I can live with that.

There were at least 100 rules violations in the thread with Nonlin. You did nothing about any of those. You only went after him when he made you look like a fool. Something you are very accomplished at.

“The negative of ‘probably won’t’ is ‘definitely will’, but the negative of definitely will is not probably won’t”

phoodoo: The irony of it all is that Lizzie says she started this site to counter her being banned at UD. So fuckwad Alan does exactly what they complained about, by making it impossible for non atheists to post here with any kind of fair treatment.

This is inaccurate, by the way. One reason Lizzie started TSZ was to allow discussions with folks at Uncommon Descent blog to continue after she was banned there. But it wasn’t the only reason:

My name is Elizabeth Liddle, and I started this site to be a place where people could discuss controversial positions about life, the universe and everything with minimal tribal rancour (pay no attention to the penguins….)

My motivation for starting the site has been the experience of trying to discuss religion, politics, evolution, the Mind/Brain problem, creationism, ethics, exit polls, probability, intelligent design, and many other topics in venues where positions are strongly held and feelings run high. In most venues, one view dominates, and there is a kind of “resident prior” about the integrity, intelligence and motivation of those who differ from the majority view.

That is why the strapline says: “Park your priors by the door”. They may be adjusted by the time you leave!

And, unlike Uncommon Descent, where dissenting commenters are banned with gay abandon and comments deleted without compunction, nobody is banned* at TSZ and no comments (other than doxxing) have been deleted. Paul Nelson is welcome to continue posting here. He is welcome to write an OP if he wishes and it will be published. Sure he will incur contrary opinions and argument. I would have thought that would be to his benefit.

*Technically, Joe Gallien (and aliases) is under suspension. He was offered reinstatement subject to assurances as to future conduct.

phoodoo: Fuck off isn’t against the rules but performance art is?
Heavens, no. What a strange idea. As a matter of fact, I refrained from guanoing a comment of yours, because I viewed it as performance art, rather than discussing moderation on the wrong thread (a rule violation). I was proud of your command of the English vernacular, too — “fucking wanker” — excellent!
phoodoo’s bit about “probably won’t” is an allusion to the Affirming the Consequent thread, where keiths and others made a sterling effort to explain the difference between propositional and modal logic to phoodoo. Without much success, unfortunately.

The ruleset could be modified to provide disincentives for persistent trolling, but this would be a radical departure, and probably not in line with the owner’s vision.

So if a poster says “pull your head out of your ass” repeatedly, and I respond with “pull your head out of YOUR ass” and you guano my posts and none others, you think that is inline with the owners vision ?

The whole concept of moderation requires that the moderator actually be an impartial judge of the rules.But that’s a farce here and even you know that.The exact same comments from an atheist are then called against the rules when it is someone the moderators don’t like . I have shown how blatant this is over and over. The exact same posts are judged totally differently.

I don’t spend a lot of time reading and participating here. Sometimes there is a thread I find interesting, and I don’t mind wading in for a bit. But I have to confess I don’t even know who the moderators are, and if any of my posts have been moved I’m not aware of it. I do prefer if a thread remains on-topic, and if people put some thought into the substance being discussed. For me, trying to deduce or intuit the biases of whoever the moderators are, and how they show it, I simply lack enough knowledge to comment on.

Furthermore,the atheist moderators here,besides ganging up to oust the only moderator here who didn’t play that game,use their moderating to try to win arguments.Look what the fuckwad Alan just did,to show clearly that posters like Paul Nelson here are not welcome,because they don’t support Alan’s views.It’s the only waythese pathetic skeptics can control the narrative.If Jock starts losing an argument (always) , he jumps right to his warnings and censorship.What a dibk. They don’t don’t even pretend to be impartial anyone.

I have difficulty casting this forum as a site for “winning” a conversation. I certainly welcome any contribution Paul Nelson makes. I have no idea what Alan just did — I don’t even know who Alan is. I don’t think I’ve ever conversed with him. Is there more than one Alan here? I can tell you that I would dread the threat of being sentenced to be a moderator. It sounds like a thankless task.

The irony of it all is that Lizzie says she started this site to counter her being banned at UD. Sofuckwad Alan does exactly what they complained about,by making it impossible for non atheists to post here with any kind of fair treatment.

I know that UD was in the common practice of banning all disagreement with their official beliefs, and if Lizzie thought that practice inhibited discussion unduly, I agree with her. Legitimate, vigorous disagreement is what keeps a discussion forum vital.

I am a bit disappointed that scientific disagreement has so easily and quickly devolved into religious disagreement. Perhaps anyplace where evolution and evolutionary theory is discussed will suffer that trend. My reading is that evolution is questioned primarily on religious grounds, and your reading of the quality of moderation also seems to fall along strictly religious fault lines. I am not qualified to judge.

When I told you to get your head out of your ass, it was after you continuously showed that you could not “hear” anything. You wrote that gratuitously to someone who was been very kind to you. Someone who’s always very kind to you. Someone who has asked me to be less insulting to the likes of you. So grow up and stop whining.

phoodoo: If you don’t know who the moderators here are, and the history of their abuses, then, that would be for sure.

I suppose what I was trying to say is that in my limited time here, I haven’t seen any moderator issues, certainly none that apply to anything I’ve said or posted. If their offenses have been as frequent and flagrant as you describe, I’ve missed it.

When I told you to get your head out of your ass, it was after you continuously showed that you could not “hear” anything. You wrote that gratuitously to someone who was been very kind to you. Someone who’s always very kind to you. Someone who has asked me to be less insulting to the likes of you. So grow up and stop whining.

I’m going to guess that phoodoo sees his opponents the same way they see him – as someone so wound up in their ideology they are worse than stubbornly hardheaded, they are willfully blind and stupid. Both sides see the other as output-only devices, here to preach the devil’s dogma and complain bitterly when others Will Not See.

And believe me, Alan would just love to be able to ban all of his critics completely, but that would be too obviously admitting defeat. So he does everything he can to accomplish that same thing. Like suspending Keiths, and me, and Joe and Mung…

He then shifts the playing field so far in the direction of unfairness, so that others simply have no desire to post here. He has also even tried to out peoples IP addresses, and the abuses are so prevalent, that even keiths, one of the most ardent atheists on this site, finally had to admit that the guy is just pure scum.

And in one more in a series of “coincidences” whenever I now try to edit one of my posts while I am typing, the page suddenly will disappear and I have to start all over. I can not even hit the backspace button. That only happens here.

The toddler wants his way, and does a great impression of Trump when he doesn’t get it.

And believe me, Alan would just love to be able to ban all of his critics completely, but that would be too obviously admitting defeat.So he does everything he can to accomplish that same thing. Like suspending Keiths, and me, and Joe and Mung…

OK, this is a Bad Thing. There are some offenses I think deserve suspension, but I never noticed any of those people doing them. The only suspension-level offenses I can think of off hand are porn and commercial spam. I noticed these people vanished, and I didn’t know why. I miss them, even though I generally disagreed with them. Mung was really quite enjoyable.

He then shifts the playing field so far in the direction of unfairness, so that others simply have no desire to post here. He has also even tried to out peoples IP addresses, and the abuses are so prevalent, that even keiths, one of the most ardent atheists on this site, finally had to admit that the guy is just pure scum.

While I personally don’t care if anyone knows who I am (I use me real life name) so long as I’m not spammed or stalked, I can understand people wanting to be relatively anonymous. Violating that, if Alan (Fox?) is doing that, is an abuse of power and even I would leave if it were done to me.

And in one more in a series of “coincidences” whenever I now try to edit one of my posts while I am typing, the page suddenly will disappear and I have to start all over.I can not even hit the backspace button.That only happens here.

Interestingly enough, I have had the same experience with multiple sites. I spent a long time looking for the “lose everything instantly” button, and finally someone found mine. Yours may be different, but what happens to me is that I’m typing along (I type maybe about 80 words a minute), and my little finger will accidentally press the ctrl and A keys at the same time. This has the effect of “marking” everything. And the next letter I type replaces the ENTIRE marked entry! That has happened to me here multiple times.

What you describe sounds like that sort of editing issue, which may be peculiar to WordPress. I doubt if even the most malicious moderator could target you with that sort of glitch.

Flint: OK, this is a Bad Thing. There are some offenses I think deserve suspension, but I never noticed any of those people doing them. The only suspension-level offenses I can think of off hand are porn and commercial spam. I noticed these people vanished, and I didn’t know why. I miss them, even though I generally disagreed with them. Mung was really quite enjoyable.

Well, it would be if it were true. Mung is free to post here and his account has never been suspended. One account, Joe Gallien, is currently suspended.

Hey Alan, you still haven’t answered, when is ‘ I believe you can’t pull your head out of your ass’ acceptable? Only when you deem it is not performance art? When the poster says they are frustrated? When you like them?

Hey Alan,you still haven’t answered,when is ‘ I believe you can’t pull your head out of your ass’ acceptable?Only when you deem it is not performance art?When the poster says they are frustrated?When you like them?

Alan, this is supposed to be a moderation thread where people can get clarification about the rules. This is the excuse you use for why we can never ask a question in another thread. But now you still refuse to answer these questions. So its more examples of your excuses being just bullshit.

When is that statement an acceptable post, and when is it a post that you will remove? Tough one to answer.? You need more time to fudge an answer?

I read those three posts. The worst I see is the accusation of arbitrary suspensions of posters for reasons that surely should not have warranted any suspensions. If it were up to me, suspensions would not be based on derogatory language, multiple aliases, or lack of substance in posts.

I think a moderator in this sort of presumably free-for-all forum is guaranteed to be criticized for doing anything (or nothing) as posters become offended by one another. I would establish clear rules (like no porn, no commercial spam, no outing), explain the consequences of each, and be pretty much hands off. If there are posters whose entire content consists of insults and attempts to hijack threads, and if other posters lack the sense to ignore such a person, it’s their problem and not the moderator’s problem. Refusal to engage in serious discussion should not be a suspension-level offense.

I would certainly welcome the continued participation of Patrick and Mung and others. But I guess I’m not here often enough to be all that upset by incompetent or vindictive moderation. My efforts often meet disagreement. That’s where the fun is.

he has abused the rules, made up rules that don’t exist and used this website to enact vendettas against those who are critical of him. If that doesn’t matter to you, great. Then you have nothing much to add, only what you would do if you were moderator. The pertinent point is that Alan, well, all the moderators really, is why more people don’t post here, particularly those with opposing viewpoints to the propaganda echo-chamber Alan wants this to be. And he is a liar. You don’t care. But don’t make excuses for him just because he shares your atheist bent.

he has abused the rules, made up rules that don’t exist and used this website to enact vendettas against those who are critical of him.If that doesn’t matter to you, great.Then you have nothing much to add, only what you would do if you were moderator.The pertinent point is that Alan, well, all the moderators really, is why more people don’t post here, particularly those with opposing viewpoints to the propaganda echo-chamber Alan wants this to be. And he is a liar.You don’t care.But don’t make excuses for him just because he shares your atheist bent.

Those things do matter to me. I said I didn’t know, not that I don’t care. A moderator is perhaps a person with strong opinions, and people can become quite exercised in matters of politics and religion. But a moderator must necessarily be able to take off his advocate hat and put on his judicial hat. Suspension based on someone disagreeing with a moderator’s views is a forum-killer. I agree with you there.

And as I recall, Lizzie started this form at least in part because UD in fact WAS enforced as a creationist echo chamber. She encouraged creationists to come here where their positions could be better defended. Your ideas don’t get sharpened if nobody is allowed to disagree with them. If I were here more, I’d probably notice sooner or later that moderation was vindictive, petty, and heavy handed. I’ve been evicted from forums in the past where Official Truth was enforced with selective banishment. Not much entertainment in echo chambers, even if you agree with the enforcers.

(And I think your claim that “he shares your atheist bent” is rather silly, considering that I didn’t even know who Alan was, much less what his views might be on evolution. I simply do not see evolution as a religious issue.)

ALurker had violated no rules at all, but had merely criticized Alan.Alan abusedhis power to silence a non-rule-violating critic.(And a non-rule-violating bystander, Patrick.)

It’s typical of him, and as I said above, there are plenty of other examples where that came from.

Whether these allegations are well founded or not, IF there is widespread agreement that they’re basically accurate, then some means must exist to remove moderators or else the forum suffers possible fatal losses of valued contributors.

Incidentally, how did Alan become moderator? Was he selected by Lizzie at some point when she actually existed? Did she simply turn the henhouse over to the Fox (heh) and ride off into the sunset?

Flint: Those things do matter to me. I said I didn’t know, not that I don’t care.A moderator is perhaps a person with strong opinions, and people can become quite exercised in matters of politics and religion. But a moderator must necessarily be able to take off his advocate hat and put on his judicial hat. Suspension based on someone disagreeing with a moderator’s views is a forum-killer. I agree with you there.

You are commenting on and reading a thread which consists of unsuspended commenters disagreeing with the moderator’s behavior and views , as well personally attacking him. Strange for such a purported despot to tolerate such abuse.

And as I recall, Lizzie started this form at least in part because UD in fact WAS enforced as a creationist echo chamber. She encouraged creationists to come here where their positions could be better defended. Your ideas don’t get sharpened if nobody is allowed to disagree with them.

Seems about right, and the idea that such discussions could be civil.

If I were here more, I’d probably notice sooner or later that moderation was vindictive, petty, and heavy handed.

Or that the picture so far presented is skewed from a particular perspective with a particular ax to grind.

Flint: Whether these allegations are well founded or not, IF there is widespread agreement that they’re basically accurate, then some means must exist to remove moderators or else the forum suffers possible fatal losses of valued contributors.

Mung was suspended from moderating duties by consent of other moderators and the inaction of Lizzie to reinstate. He decided to leave.

Incidentally, how did Alan become moderator? Was he selected by Lizzie at some point when she actually existed?

Yes, from the beginning.

Did she simply turn the henhouse over to the Fox (heh) and ride off into the sunset?

A few appearances, during the last one she reiterated her first rule of being an absentee owner, trusting the mods use their best judgement. She did not to replace the mods or reverse any action they took with regards to Keiths posting choices.

You know full well that Alan would love to be able to suspend his detractors permanently, and in lieu of that he would prefer to just see the site go under. he has basically said so. The only reason he can’t completely suspend people like Keiths or I is because doing so would make him look even more utterly foolish, in light of his UD complains and known statements from Lizzie that she doesn’t support banning. Of course he still is trying and one day might do that. But don’t act like he is being noble by not doing such thus far.

it should also be noted that Alan has said on many occasions that he doesn’t really want to be a moderator anytime, he doesn’t have time, blah blah. And yet he just can’t seem to just quit. Why is that? he has already seen that the site doesn’t explode when he goes away.

But alas, Alan just can’t bear the thought of losing his grip of power here. Oh the horror that would be for him. So he soldiers on with his terrific burden, basking in his lies and duplicity. What a brave little soldier boy.

newton:
Or that the picture so far presented is skewed from a particular perspective with a particular ax to grind.

Over time, I have sensed somewhat of a pattern, that people with what I consider skewed and strongly held views do not willingly tolerate disagreement. We know that this happens at UD, where creationists WANT an echo chamber. But I’ve seen the same thing occurring at sites promoting, for example, climate change denial, white supremacy, etc. Long ago there was a site discussing the potential problems with y2k, which soon devolved into (or was moderated into) a place where if you didn’t agree the sky would fall, you were summarily booted out.

I have said I’m not here enough to derive a consistent pattern of religious bias on the part of any moderators. But I do notice that the moderators (now that they’ve been identified for me) tend to focus more on the science and less on the religion whereas the loudest bleating about moderation tends to come from the most rigid creationists. I sense, perhaps dimly, that people in different camps are offended by matters central to their orientations — that moderators more concerned with civility are seen by the creationists as being anti-religion.

I was also booted out of UD at one point not because my posts were uncivil or lacked substance or hijacked threads, but because I failed to profess my belief in the One True Faith. Consider that Christians are about 85% of the American public, yet they complain loudest about religious discrimination and are most demanding of “freedom of religion”, which translates directly into a comfortable permission to exercise legal bigotry.

From these complaints I can’t tell if Alan is being arbitrary, choosing victims at random, or because they criticize him, or because of their religion, or for actual cause.

Flint: I was also booted out of UD at one point not because my posts were uncivil or lacked substance or hijacked threads, but because I failed to profess my belief in the One True Faith.

Right, in that case you were booted because of your worldview (you believe)

Flint: whereas the loudest bleating about moderation tends to come from the most rigid creationists.

, not because there was a problem with your posts, but you are not sure if that is what is happening here. Do you see your own bias coming through?

I showed you examples where the exact same posts! were deemed acceptable when an atheist wrote them, but, when I posted the exact same words, my posts got moved, and I got warned, and I even got suspended for several months because of that. But you are still not sure….

You know full well that Alan would love to be able to suspend his detractors permanently

I don’t and it is irrelevant anyway , he hasn’t , has he?

and in lieu of that he would prefer to just see the site go under.he has basically said so.

Your interpretation of “ basically “ is suspect. Not being paid, takes up time, people bitching at you, why not just walk away?

The only reason he can’t completely suspend people like Keiths or I is because doing so would make him look even more utterly foolish, in light of his UD complains and known statements from Lizzie that she doesn’t support banning.

Can’t remember ,have you been suspended ever ? Keiths once sort of ,I think , with the help of Patrick was still able to participate. One might think Alan would constantly temporarily suspending you to game the system if the goal to essentially ban you. Has he?

So maybe there are , in fact , other reasons. One might be that he puts loyalty to Lizzie’s vision over the satisfaction of giving you the boot. Seems to fit the facts, too. Then I am not quite so emotional about Alan as you are.

Of course he still is trying and one day might do that.But don’t act like he is being noble by not doing such thus far.

Likewise maybe you should let him actually commit the act before condemn him for it because you somehow know what is in his heart.

If you get tired waiting, take your act to UD if you want to experience the actual thing. There is no moderation thread there, by the way.

phoodoo: it should also be noted that Alan has said on many occasions that he doesn’t really want to be a moderator anytime, he doesn’t have time, blah blah. And yet he just can’t seem to just quit. Why is that? he has already seen that the site doesn’t explode when he goes away.

I would ask him that or ask Neil or Jock is they prefer he quits. It seem pretty simple to ask.

But alas, Alan just can’t bear the thought of losing his grip of power here. Oh the horror that would be for him. So he soldiers on with his terrific burden, basking in his lies and duplicity. What a brave little soldier boy.

True , the power to torment you and Keiths must be an irresistible and satisfying perk of the job.

phoodoo: Right, in that case you were booted because of your worldview (you believe)

Yes, that’s what I think happened, but this was not just an intuition. There was a consistent policy being applied, and it was no secret

, not because there was a problem with your posts, but you are not sure if that is what is happening here.Do you see your own bias coming through?

Well, I can’t see through anyone else’s eyes. Your objections to Alan’s moderation seem more acidic and pointed than others, and you post more of them. But as you point out, others Alan has acted against are atheists (Keiths, Patrick, ALurker, etc.) There doesn’t seem to be a strictly religious motivation (though it might be a contributing factor).

I showed you examples where the exact same posts! were deemed acceptable when an atheist wrote them, but, when I posted the exact same words, my posts got moved, and I got warned, and I even got suspended for several months because of that.But you are still not sure….

I’m still not sure because Alan’s personal animosity toward certain posters seems at least as explanatory as religious bias. For all I know, there may be several other factors in Alan’s mind that we aren’t aware of. You point to specific excerpts (from longer posts) while ignoring the remainder, and attribute religious bias to Alan’s reaction to exactly those excerpts. May I suggest the outside possibility that a poster’s atheism was largely irrelevant when all factors are considered?

Really, phoodoo, you come across as the sort of player who would accuse the umpire of calling balls and strikes more on the basis of the batter’s atheism than on the location of the pitches. You would be highly sensitive to each religious believer called out on strikes, to the point where religious bias in umpiring would seem irrefutable to you. Some highly religious but undisciplined batters strike out a lot, while some skilled but nonreligious batters rarely do. QED, right? To me, this is a peculiar way to see the world.